Deputies, Police Reserves and the Militia

There were no police at the time the Constitution was written and the Bill of Rights ratified. Police as we know them didn’t come into being until a couple of decades later, in England. There, giving the police power was resisted as an infringement on local power for a considerable time, and police only gradually spread across the United States. Police forces have taken over many of the functions of local militias and are, for the most part, locally controlled. The closest modern equivalent to the militia . . .

of the Constitutional era are reserve deputies. While the militias traditionally elected their officers, sheriffs are elected by county voters. Police chiefs aren’t elected, but are appointed by people who are, putting them at an unfortunate remove from responsibility to the electorate.

Sheriffs have traditionally been able to appoint deputies at will. In northern Wisconsin we called them “dollar a year deputies” because the nominal stipulation was that they were paid a dollar a year. Deputies have arrest powers, but dollar a year deputies rarely exercise them, wisely choosing to avoid the type of entanglements that come with acting outside of emergency situations.

I would bet a pretty penny that reservists commit far fewer crimes per capita than police do, just as concealed carry permit holders do. It makes sense; people who are reservists or CCW holders tend to be self-selected as the most responsible group in the community. I suspect that much the same could have been said of militia members who took their duties seriously.

In the United States, police, deputies, or other officers who have HR 218/Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act (LEOSA) status, may legally carry concealed firearms throughout the United States and its territories, including the District of Columbia. This is an avenue for people to exercise an effective national right to carry. It applies to many places that are prohibited to people with ordinary concealed carry permits, though those exceptions are dwindling.

For example, all states now allow people to carry in restaurants that serve alcohol. Some states allow officers, but not permit holders, to carry in bars. HR 218 status is valid in places that don’t have any reciprocity with other states, and in the few federal enclaves where concealed carry permits are not allowed, such as most military bases or the District of Columbia.

A small town in Michigan is being investigated for no apparent reason, but that it has a large number of reserve police, about a 100, for a population of 290.

Earlier this month, The Detroit News reported the auxiliary officers donate so much money that they cover the $38,000 police budget and some other government expenses.

Their status as reserves allows them to bring their guns into no-weapon zones such as bars and ballparks, according to state law.

Critics accused the officers of trading donations for the looser weapon rules.

Police Chief Rob Reznick, who denied there’s any quid pro quo, said he has nothing to hide. “We welcome the investigation,” he said. “We will cooperate fully.”

It’s not clear that the reservists mentioned are HR 218 qualified. However, they are issued a badge, an ID, and a gun and may have a department willing to back them up. How would any enforcer throughout the nation know that they were not?

Before Wisconsin passed their shall issue law in November of 2011, they had no provision for concealed carry by ordinary citizens. Often overlooked, however, was the ability of sheriffs to appoint deputies, and police chiefs, reservists.

Far back in antiquity, I was a police reservist for a time. It was a position that I actively sought for the ability to carry a concealed weapon. A good friend of mine, a woman, obtained her “dollar a year deputy” card by going to the sheriff and telling him that she was going to carry…so give her a card and make her legal. He did just that.

Over the years, some states have enacted legislation making it more difficult to become a deputy or police reservist. Some require that the applicant attend a peace officer academy which can be a large investment in time and money, and may require political appointment in some areas. Many areas elect constables. In sparsely populated rural areas this office might be obtained with little effort.

While it’s likely that national reciprocity for carry permits will become law at some point (several attempts have been made, even during the Obama administration), the potential of becoming a reserve officer or deputy offers an interesting possibility for those who travel extensively and who wish to exercise their right to self defense during those travels.

comments

The PA State Constables predate the constitution by nearly 100 years, and they’re still functioning today. They were the city and township law enforcement. Their duties were to keep the peace. The hard broad arrest powers as they still do today.

Sheriff’s in PA don’t have statutory arrest authority. It’s questionable if a full time deputy qualifies under LEOSA. Our Sheriff has been telling his deputies that they don’t qualify and to stay the hell of of NJ with a firearm, unless they’re in uniform and doing a extradition. He’s a very pro 2A sheriff.

To be a reserve deputy, you’d have to complete Act 2 training, which currently stands somewhere north of 500 hours of training. After looking at the ACSO’s website, this last line kind of concerns me:

“Many General Reserve members eventually become Uniform Reserve members with full Title 18 arresting powers. Meetings are the last Thursday of each month. ”

Sheriff’s in PA lack statutory authority to enforce the Pa Crimes Code (Title 18). I’m not sure where that statement is coming from. Anyone can make a on view felony arrest (citizens arrest), but, that’s not the same as have statutory title 18 enforcement powers. Unless Allegheny county has it’s own carve out in the PA municipal code, which is possible, I’d ask lots and lots of questions.

actually, militias still exist in many states, and even at the federal level (see 10 USC 311: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/311). I like to pull that out on antis who mention the whole 2A militia thingy. In my state, men and women under 65 automatically are part of the militia so . . . . kinda kills Bloomy’s little bed-wetting theme, eh?

This won’t work in IL tho. 926B.b.1 reinforces the state of IL private right to prohibit concealed weapons on your property. It seems the lib-tards in Springfield were already aware of this and closed that loophole. Or they just got lucky and did it by accident.

Since the above mentions some places where you can, and can’t carry, Id like to bring up something.
I would like to see a provision where one could CC in the postal box area of a post office.
Almost every day I go to the P.O. to check my box, and I have to take my piece out and stick it somewhere out of sight. There should not be a problem with CC, as long as the counter area of the P.O. is in a separate area.
Fat chance eh!

you said “The closest modern equivalent of to the militia of the Constitutional era are reserve deputies.”

I would like to differ with you. Since we are talking guns here, the Second Amendment is my reference point. In the Heller decision, Justice Scalia clearly laid out what “milita” means.

First Scalia said the following:
In interpreting this text, we are guided by the principle that “[t]he Constitution was written to be understood by the voters; its words and phrases were used in their normal and ordinary as distinguished from technical meaning.” United States v. Sprague, 282 U. S. 716, 731 (1931) ; see also Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1, 188 (1824). Normal meaning may of course include an idiomatic meaning, but it excludes secret or technical meanings that would not have been known to ordinary citizens in the founding generation.

So no super special language. Just plain talk of the time. Next he defined a MILITIA.

2. Prefatory Clause.

The prefatory clause reads: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State … .”

a. “Well-Regulated Militia.” In United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, 179 (1939) , we explained that “the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense.” That definition comports with founding-era sources. See, e.g., Webster (“The militia of a country are the able bodied men organized into companies, regiments and brigades … and required by law to attend military exercises on certain days only, but at other times left to pursue their usual occupations”); The Federalist No. 46, pp. 329, 334 (B. Wright ed. 1961) (J. Madison) (“near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands”); Letter to Destutt de Tracy (Jan. 26, 1811), in The Portable Thomas Jefferson 520, 524 (M. Peterson ed. 1975) (“[T]he militia of the State, that is to say, of every man in it able to bear arms”).

Petitioners take a seemingly narrower view of the militia, stating that “[m]ilitias are the state- and congressionally-regulated military forces described in the Militia Clauses (art. I, §8, cls. 15–16).” Brief for Petitioners 12. Although we agree with petitioners’ interpretive assumption that “militia” means the same thing in Article I and the Second Amendment , we believe that petitioners identify the wrong thing, namely, the organized militia. Unlike armies and navies, which Congress is given the power to create (“to raise … Armies”; “to provide … a Navy,” Art. I, §8, cls. 12–13), the militia is assumed by Article I already to be in existence. Congress is given the power to “provide for calling forth the militia,” §8, cl. 15; and the power not to create, but to “organiz[e]” it—and not to organize “a” militia, which is what one would expect if the militia were to be a federal creation, but to organize “the” militia, connoting a body already in existence, ibid., cl. 16. This is fully consistent with the ordinary definition of the militia as all able-bodied men. From that pool, Congress has plenary power to organize the units that will make up an effective fighting force. That is what Congress did in the first militia Act, which specified that “each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective states, resident therein, who is or shall be of the age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia.” Act of May 8, 1792, 1 Stat. 271. To be sure, Congress need not conscript every able-bodied man into the militia, because nothing in Article I suggests that in exercising its power to organize, discipline, and arm the militia, Congress must focus upon the entire body. Although the militia consists of all able-bodied men, the federally organized militia may consist of a subset of them.

So in sum, (and I ain’t no lawyer), a militia is ALL ABLE-BODIED MEN period.

Local militias of the constitutional era were locally controlled and often voted for their own officers. They organized locally, trained locally and had local officers.

That is the point that I was making about local militias.

To the extent that militias are federally controlled, they are not really local militias any more.

Teddy Roosevelt basicly created his own militia by recruiting the rough riders. The Dick act came after that. “Progressives” do not hold much truck with locally maintained and controlled military forces.

Yep.
There is no such thing as a federal militia (unless you mean all able bodied men of D.C.). By it’s meaning at the time of writing the constitution, the populace of the colonies had worked together to make a citizen driven militia to fight the standing armies of the british. At the point of the revolution, there was no strong central government of the colonies. The government of the colonies was the british parliament.
That’s why I find the argument of some antis ridiculous; that a governing body could form a militia by definition, even though that would constitute an army by definition.
For those that don’t remember history, during the revolution we had both the militia and the continental army, the latter of which was formed as an actual army (like the national guard) and the former of which was made of any civilian who had a rifle and was willing to fight.

I was a sheriff’s reserve deputy for 5 years, and it was great. I served on patrol in uniform alongside f/t deputies, some of whom who became good friends. That said, if you just want to carry a gun just get a CCW permit rather than becoming a reserve LEO. The commitment of time can be high: my reserve academy was 200+ hours (LAPD’s is 600+), I had a mandatory monthly meeting and all the same training (range quals, OC, CQB etc) to do, plus at least 12 hours a month on patrol. We were not accorded full-time peace officer status, so having the badge/credential didn’t authorize you to carry like full-time LEOs can. That’s ok … I didn’t do it for that reason, and I had no desire to be a cop out of uniform (it’s dangerous). I admire the contribution reserves make, am glad I did it, but in my 50s I decided I wasn’t able to maintain the proficiency I wanted to have if the SHTF. It’s hard to do that by doing one or a few shifts a month. If you have the time, I’d recommend the experience though.

That’s similar to what we have here in Harris County (Houston), TX. Our reserve Sheriff’s deputy command is the largest in Texas, 2nd largest in the U.S. after L.A. County, CA. Here, though, reserve deputies have the same training, same TX peace officer license, and same legal authority as full time deputies, only they work as volunteers and have to pay their own expenses. Time commitment is 20 hours per month, more during emergencies or special events, and includes all roles of full time deputies.

It’s a great option for people considering a career in that field, whether they’re already working or they’re still in school, as well as for former full timers who may have retired or transitioned to other careers. Many just do it purely as a civic duty, too. Overall, in this jurisdiction, it’s too involved a commitment if all someone were interested in is the carrying perks.

I acknowledge the OP’s point; notwithstanding the counter-arguments about the militia being defined as all able-bodied males. The office of sheriff is very old in English tradition. It is a short derivation from this office that a sheriff may appoint deputies. There seems to be no conflict between the idea that an unorganized militia exist comprising all males; another sub-body of the unorganized militia consisting of those who muster for military exercises; and, yet, another sub-body (coexistent with those who muster for military exercises) who regularly (albeit not continuously) serve law-enforcement functions. These $1/yr deputy sheriffs are a kind of militia by another name.
– – – That said, I lament the nearly-dead state of musters of the unorganized militia. We have allowed our States to let this institution disappear from the public mind. Moreover, laws forbidding “private armies” and unauthorized military exercises cast a pale upon efforts of volunteers to maintain the visibility of this institution.
– – – Patrick Downs describes a deputy sheriff institution that – apparently – his sheriff had kept alive at his own initiative (and presumably as sanctioned by his State’s laws). That regime involving 200 hours of initial training and 12 hours/month of service is considerable; perhaps commendable. Other sheriffs could maintain such volunteer deputies with more/less time-commitments.
– – – I think we should look to such volunteer deputies as analogous to volunteer fire departments (still very common outside the major cities). The public should be educated to STOP thinking about the dichotomy of POLICE/civilians; instead, START thinking of a continuum of full-time professional police AND part-time paid AND part-time volunteer police having a spectrum of more/less training, duties, authority. The “tail” of this spectrum consists of CCP-carriers and unarmed civilians who ad-hoc direct traffic around the scene of accidents until relieved by higher-ranked authorities.
– – – That which we call the “militia” served (historically) a dual purpose: 1) they mustered at the call of the sovereign to repeal invasion; and, 2) they answered the hue and cry “stop thief!” to maintain law and order. Both purposes survive. We the People are sovereign; and, have a duty to muster to protect the free state from threats foreign or domestic. We likewise have a moral (and sometimes a legal) duty to take some actions in case of a petty crime or other disorder. Our sheriffs and police chiefs ought to capitalize on the available resource of law-abiding gun owners.

reserve LEOs in most states are the same as regular officers, with the exception that they dont get paid. they are issued uniforms, vehicles and weapons the same as paid officers, though some agencies cant afford to issue gear so reserves buy thier own. the concept of a reserve peace officer is the same as a volenteer firefighter. they are covered under the agencies insurance as well. the main difference being that reserve officers are required to complete all the same training and education that paid officers do, unlike vol firefighters. requiring reserves to attend the academy and training is just common sense, not some sinister method to keep people out, if you have statutory authority and sling a gun for the government, you better know your shit.

I was a Reserve Police Officer w/ the Sheriff’s Dept for 20+years. When I went to the academy back in the early 90’s, it was close to 400 hrs. I had 24/7 police powers and was good state wide. Unfortunately, the County Attorney’s opinion was that reserve’s were not employees, so didn’t qualify for LEOSA.

I can understand that. Being retired and always somewhat footloose, I run around a lot, ignoring local restrictions as I’m just passing through. Only place I don’t go is CA, since I refuse to let them take a penny of mine in taxes, gas, sales, or whatever. I guess I’ve been in (and carried in) about 20 states since the beginning of June.

Most people don’t realize that the majority of Firefighters in the US are volunteers.

I wondered if it were possible, especially with so many cities having budget crisis, to start to make a volunteer police department a normal entity. You’d have to have specialized officers for positions like detectives and (begrudgingly) SWAT, as well as management/top brass. But there is no reason a substantial fraction of regular patrol officers can’t be volunteers. They would be trained, receive equipment, and be covered by insurance while on duty.

I think this would make the citizen/officer interaction much better as it would break down the blue wall.

“But there is no reason a substantial fraction of regular patrol officers can’t be volunteers. They would be trained, receive equipment, and be covered by insurance while on duty.”

This is true, J. Here in IL, it is not uncommon–especially in small towns or on county sheriff’s departments–to have reserve officers (sworn but not paid), auxiliary officers (non-sworn volunteers who generally only make arrests while working with sworn staff) and part-time officers. I was an auxiliary officer in a small village for a short time (six to eight months, I think). I distinctly recall working a presidential motorcade detail with no vest, no gun and a radio that took a dump. Good times!

But it can be a lot more professional than that, of course. Reserve or part-time officers can (and do) attend part-time academies (and are able to work their day jobs when not training). The FOP and Police Benevolent Associations won’t like it, but I can envision this concept becoming widespread.

For instance, in a sizable municipality, the patrol division could consist of rapid response units (full-time officers assigned to two officer units) and neighborhood officers (part-time and/or reserve officers working in the district of the city that they actually live in, for a change). In a more rural setting, you might have similar rapid response units combined with community deputies (part-time/reserve deputies assigned to the areas of the county they hail from). This would all be quite similar to some of the fire departments here in Central IL that are a mix of professional and volunteer fire-fighters (some may also be paid-per-call, due to the problems with maintaining all volunteer departments in some areas).

The transition to this system might come in a time when the role of the police has been re-envisioned. A renewed commitment to limited government, an end to the abominable war on drugs and an understanding that most “policing” in the community is done privately anyway may expedite this process.

I think the concept of “loser pays” in lawsuits would be most helpful to this concept as well. IOW lose about 90% of harassing lawsuits and so forth, since the plaintiff would have to cough up some serious bucks (an unlimited quantity) unless he actually wins. Otherwise those “reserve officers” would need to be really rich or really dumb to put themselves in the crosshairs of a society gone crazy for free money.

Can you shed some light on how many hours reserves were expected/hoped to work where you were at, and how much schedule flexibility there was? It sounds like a very different environment, the idea of working without vest/gun/radio is completely out of my experience. I don’t even ride a bicycle or mow my lawn without a gun.

If it’s some paid and some reserves, do you envision the paid guys taking the hot calls (in progress or anything likely to involve use of force), and the reserves taking the paper calls (cold burglary, stolen car, graffiti tagging, etc)?

While I don’t disagree with you in principle, in practice many areas may be too busy for volunteer police to be viable. Fire departments have a lot of down time, compared to police where I work. If there’s no fire and nobody seriously in need of medical attention, they don’t come out of the station. They do good work, and I’m glad they’re not needed more often than they are, but the fact is in my area police get eight to ten times higher call volume.

I’ve never been a reserve, and my department doesn’t have them, so I don’t know how many hours is customary for them to work each week. I have a difficult time seeing people volunteering in my area for more than one shift a week, though- it’s ten hours, and unless you work day shift, you have to work pretty hard to dodge calls. That means you need around four times as many officers, if you want a volunteer department.

My department has been hiring for over a year now, trying to fill six positions. So far we’ve hired four guys, and they seem to be pretty good, but we have something like a 96% washout rate for entry level applicants right now. This is just the people who passed the physical fitness and written tests, which when I tested was about a quarter of the starting pool. So just using those completely unscientific numbers, if you wanted to hold reserves to the same entry standards as paid officers, you would have to have something like 40k applicants of the same quality (we would need to add about 400 at one shift a week, provided none of the current group left).

How many guys do you want on the road at any given time? Where I work it’s minimum seven at night, nine during the day. If enough people call in sick, they can require the previous shift to stay late to cover, or call people at home and order them to come in (usually the overtime pay is enough to stifle complaints, but not always). Can you find enough volunteers to have seven people work a night shift, every single day of the year? Can they take five months off from their regular job to go to the academy here?

This sounds a lot more pessimistic than what I had in my head when I started typing- there may be large parts of the country where the call load is low enough and the population is still civic minded enough to make this work. But in King County WA, I just don’t see it working. And that’s a shame.

PS- none of this is meant as anything against volunteers/reserves. The men and women I met in the academy who had been reserves in other places were great, and my department has some great people who were reserves in the past. I just don’t see there being enough of them.

All good points both favoring consideration for volunteer police and challenging the practicality.
– – – In very low-crime areas the proposition seems feasible. The whole idea of a “patrol” doesn’t seem cost-justified. Volunteers going about their usual business could provide a patrol where a professional force wouldn’t be need/cost-justified.
– – – In high-crime areas where professional patrols are justified, the volunteers going about their usual business would provide additional eyes, ears and guns on the street. Where the professionals are over-loaded or not fortuitously-positioned, volunteers (whose precise location could be identified by GPS/cell-phones) could be called to provide a more prompt response.
– – – Severe emergencies occur rarely: hurricanes; floods; riots; etc. To be able to call for reinforcements from a cadre of volunteers who are known and occasionally exercised is a better proposition than to call for ad-hoc volunteers who are less-well-known and un-exercised.
– – – Municipal financial distress is something we should all be anticipating. Detroit is the outstanding example; but there are hundreds or thousands of PDs/Sheriffs who have had to lay-off personnel. When the ranks of professional officers are cut-back severely, what’s our “Plan B”? Making do with some volunteers to supplement what remains of our professional force may be the best alternative available to us. Shall we implement such volunteer reserves after the layoffs? Or, before the layoffs?
– – – Police unions (and their members) may fear for their jobs. Let’s face it, that’s a legitimate concern from their viewpoints. If there exists a reserve police cadre to fall back on then municipalities might be more willing to lay-off one full-time police officer vs. some other municipal employee. I believe that our police are both professional and civic minded enough to recognize that society’s need for police services supersede any individual’s vested interest in his own job. We, as civilian citizens, need to recognize that we will some day have to choose between more taxes than the tax-base can bear or a sacrifice in professional police (and other municipal) services. What do we want? A vacuum? Or, a “well regulated” militia capable of making due?

Unfortunately this article is not completely true. Even under LEOSA you are not allowed to carry in states that don’t recognize the act like California. The stipulation for a LEO to carry in most restricted areas is you have to be on duty and performing official duties. States are not required to follow federal law such as LEOSA. So many places in DC are federal property and you are still denied carry under LEOSA. NYC is another place that even on duty out of state LEO’s are not allowed to carry with out special advance permission unless it has changed in the last couple of years.

Tell that to CHP and California DOJ they are the ones that informed me I would be arrested if found carrying, even after I explained who I work for and carried credentials. Also marijuana is not legal by federal standards but some states and municipalities allow certain weights. In NY we had to turn our guns over while in NYC to investigate a case and they were given back as we left. States can regulate harder than the Feds allow which is how they are getting away with not recognizing LEOSA. Yes I might win in court but at what expense.

Very good information. There have been many reports of California “law enforcement” agencies that are unwilling to follow the law. Years ago, LAPD was notorious for confiscating firearms anytime they came across them, legal or not.

Often the only way to bring these scoflaw agencies to task is to take them to court.

Federal Buildings are off limits to LEOSA but State Parks are not, and, if you have a state CWP you can carry concealed in a federal park within the state that you reside or in a state that has a reciprocal agreement with your home state.

Theoretically, that’s correct. However, I’ve been told that NJ cops will arrest a carrier exempted by LEOSA. That arrest is a means of harassing the concealed-carrier enough to discourage him and other carriers under LEOSA from practicing CC in NJ. I don’t have first-hand knowledge of this; it’s just what I have heard.

My understand is that sheriffs in many states are rather impotent nowadays. In many western states they still hold much power though.

California only recently got rid of the remnants of marshalls and constables which used to complete the “elected law enforcement” function

But we still have a Military Department. It has 5 divisions- office of the Adjutant General, National Guard, State Military Reserve, Naval Militia, and California Cadet Corps

The last three form California’s independent from the national guard/federal control militia.

One of many reasons I laughed when pundits here attacked AZ for forming a state militia similarly. The Cadets, tw, are a high school program. Disappeare from Los Angeles and San Fran during the Vietnam war, when the school districts there violated State law and banned them from campus (law requires a campus presence whenever there are students volunteering but its only punishment for not doing so is a nominal cut in state funding).

The Naval militia has no ships…ever since the ships they had were impressed into service by the Feds in WWI

I personally would like the Cadet corp to be mandatory (with an ability for individuals to opt out), followed by a (short) mandatory service in either the state militia or some other civil service program, with few exceptionns. A boon for local autonomy, with the greater numbers we could restore the old chain of command structure with elected leaders (the sheriff or constable [more local] were the head of the militia in their area), less dependency on police forces (or at least free them to go after more serious matters) . Plus, with most students doing drills carrying rifles and range time, might help end the anti-gun culture here

J that is a great idea and your right it would break down the blue wall unfortunately certain areas can’t do that in umatilla county we have had just a reservist on for an entire night or just one full timer, we don’t have the man power and our reservists work all sorts of jobs that if something huge went down they could not stay if the time started getting close to time to get ready for work they chance losing there job if they don’t make it. There should be laws in place for employees so that if an emergency happens they cannot be held accountable for being late say bank robbery, or active shooter, or man hunt, I was told by my employer that if I was late at all due to reserve duty I would be written up. I think volunteer firefighters aND volunteer cops should be under the same set up as guardsmen, not saying they should be military but if called to service they can’t be fired and should be allowed so much time for training, etc. I don’t know that’s just me

I understand the focus of this article is the LEOSA legislation, but the reading of it makes it sound like the author is advocating carry by LEOs only – even if its just a Cracker Jack box badge. I don’t think that is the right message to be sending when the goal is carry by all…

My reading comprehension is just fine, thanks. In fact, Dean concludes the article with the statement:

“While it’s likely that national reciprocity for carry permits will become law at some point (several attempts have been made, even during the Obama administration), the potential of becoming a reserve officer or deputy offers an interesting possibility for those who travel extensively and who wish to exercise their right to self defense during those travels.”

You use a closing paragraph to summarize the story and impart closing thoughts on your audience. Given that context, the advocacy being presented (intended or otherwise), is that if we want to carry nationally, we should become reserve officers – short of a new law that enumerates that right – despite the fact that constitutionally, we should already have that right.

Anti-gunners are going to grab that and say: “See, their message is inconsistent, they understand they need to be a LEO or military to carry.”

I get it the intent – it’s a loophole that can possibly be used. But it sends the wrong message that we need a loophole to exercise our rights.

You are right, you can exercise your rights without any loophole. OTOH, you may need that loophole to stay out of jail while exercising your rights. The fact that it is wrong will not necessarily stop the door from slamming. The choice to risk that is yours, as is the cost of defending yourself up to the SC, and so is the punishment if you lose or give up or run out of money for lawyers.

So many contradictions on this site….so many people here allegedly support the 2A, yet they belligerently defend the system that requires them to obtain permits to exercise these rights. Rights do not require legislation or permits to exercise them, but privileges do, and so many here don’t seem to understand this, or intentionally obfuscate the issue for whatever agenda.

Larry, you are absolutely correct. Advocacy is not equal to Legality. The assumption is the piece is advocating, because we all know you can’t provide legal advice without a license/attorney-client privilege agreement in place right? 😉

Also the legality of what is being suggested is extremely vague at best. The author even admits so much. So I think the points being made are bad all around. Don’t think you can exercise your 2A without restriction and don’t think the loophole presented here will be a get out of jail free card. Better to advocate and work towards the ultimate goal.

I called and spoke with California BOJ or DOJ (whatever they call themselves) to ask and was was politely but firmly told that they did not recognize LEOSA and followed their own legal mandates concerning carrying concealed. The question I posed was could I carry concealed while on vacation under LEOSA since they don’t recognize my CC permit. If they have changed it has been in the last year. (I cancelled my trip and did not press the issue)

The worst cops are the ones who want to be able to carry a gun and have a shiny badge and maybe some POV lights to show girls. The better ones are those who are seeking a career in their community. The former are rampant among many ‘sorta’ police positions and are a great reason it should take more than knowing a guy to be placed in such a role.

Though one motivation would go away if we treated regular citizen carry as we do law enforcement… which would make more sense.

Admittedly I live in a state where becoming a police officer is a very difficult process, but the reserve programs here fall under one of two categories: licensed reserves and volunteer reserves. The licensed reserves are those programs into which you must be ‘hired,’ and they undergo the same background investigation, hiring process, and training as full-time officers. Whether their licenses are activated as full-time or part-time (separate licenses under our POST board) seems a bit nebulous, but while on duty they have full arrest power.

Other departments have reserve programs that essentially only require you to pass a background check, be 18, and not be a criminal. Those basically involve wearing a blue uniform and carrying a radio at the county fair.

So here your choices are to put yourself through Minnesota’s stringent minimum qualifications in order to work part time as a sworn reserve, or to basically be a volunteer security guard.

As I recall from my academy training in 1988, in Virginia, state corrections officers have no arrest authority and by Code are not authorized to concealed carry unless they get a permit. The only exemption is for “non custodial” sworn officers, in other words, the dept’s few investigators. Sidebar, state custodial corrections officers are the only folks in VA that can shoot an escaping inmate as standard practice, while other LEOs/Deputies must consider if the prisoner is an immediate threat to public safety (virtually never happens).

County Sheriff’s Office jailers and Bailiffs take a different (shorter) academy that street cops, not sure how that affects LEOSA.

I did 4 years as a small town PD reserve before getting hired on full time.
We were fully commissioned officers and completed the local Sheriff’s Reserve Academy which was patterned after the state” police academy with the same amount of hours.

If you are considering Reserve Service be committed to community service and the enforcement of the law as it exists. You dont get too much leeway in the job in many ways.

Additionally, I had statewide authority, but when I crossed a state line I was obliged to obey the state laws, which didnt recognize out of state LEO.

In GA all reserve officers are fully mandated police officers and are required to complete the same training as all other officers. These are usually officers who left full time law enforcement and wanted to stay certified.
Its would be hard for a citizen to just do it. The basic mandate is 500+ hours and Field training can take months. If someone had the resources to take the time off to do all that, it is possible. We no longer have the non certified reserves. Far too much liability involved in Law Enforcement these days.

Back before the 80s roughly, it was common knowledge that the Sheriff of my County was reluctant to issue concealed carry permits under the old may issue system. He was also more willing to hand out badges to “Reserve Deputies” and tell them to only show it if they got caught carrying concealed.

Parliament only approved Robert Peel’s plan to set up the Metropolitan Police Force (Scotland Yard) by a few votes, because it looked like a standing, occupying army to them.

Then the concept spread to New York and everywhere in the U.S.. The Sheriffs and Constables were usually an arm of the Court, not the Executive. Their job was to bring defendants in for trial, execute on judgments, capture felons, and to assist with the investigation. Their job was not to “Prevent Crime.”

We all know that the government, at all levels has no duty to the individual from criminal conduct. You are the only one responsible for your own protection. The government has no legal duty to protect you or to even respond to a 911 call. As the United States Court of Appeals held in Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A 2d 1 ( U.S. App. D.C. 1981): “Accordingly, courts have without exception concluded that when a municipality or other governmental entity undertakes to furnish police services, it assumes a duty only to the public at large and not to individual members of the community.” (quoting the Opinion of the U.S. District Court). 444 A 2d 1, 4. Here is an excellent article by Roger Roots of the Constitution Society: Are Cops Constitutional? http://www.constitution.org/lrev/roots/cops.htm

Every time the government runs low on money they always threaten to lay off the police force. I contend that crime would go down because men would have to stop being wimps, hiding behind the curtains and calling 911 when a couple of thug teenagers came down the street. They would have to do their duty and tell them to get out of the neighborhood.

John Locke and Thomas Hobbes had very specific views on the inalienable right to use arms for self defense. The argument (that we have ceded this authority to the government) is, faulty to the extent that it suggests that, if government did assume an obligation to protect each individual, it could rightfully require its citizens to abandon their right to self-protection. Hobbes and Locke held the right to life to be irreducible and inalienable; governments could not require men to trade or abandon the right to defend themselves. As Hobbes said, “A covenant not to defend myselfe from force, by force, is alwayes voyd.”

Surprisingly, Alabama got “Shall Issue” last year and the Number 1 opponents to Shall issue were the Sheriffs. They put out so much misinformation it was sick. . We know who the bad guys and the good guys are in the community. In a county of 500,000? Really?